Re: Robert Fulford, Betty & Barney Hill - Randle

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:48:11 EDT
Fwd Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 12:04:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Robert Fulford, Betty & Barney Hill - Randle
>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>>Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:08:13 -0300>Subject: Re: Robert Fulford, Betty & Barney Hill>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>>>To: ufoupdates.nul>>Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:54:25 EDT>>Subject: Re: Robert Fulford, Betty & Barney Hill>>>From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul>>>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>>>>Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:04:20 -0300>>>Subject: Re: Robert Fulford, Betty & Barney Hill
<snip>
>>>Let us not forget that Dr. Simon was a very well respected>>>psychiatrist with long experience at using medical hypnosis to>>>extract the truth about traumatic experiences. He was not a new->>>comer to the process.>>>There is an enormous amount of emotion on the tapes... and it>>>took great skill to break through the blocks without putting>>>words in their mouths... which he didn't.>>Stan, List, All...>>Can't let this pass without a comment.>>Recent studies, including those on soldiers who claim to have>>seen horrific combat while serving in Vietnam has shown that the>>amount of emotion displayed by the subject is no certain gauge>>as to the reliability of the stories. In other words, many of>>those who display the proper emotion while relating their tales>>of combat have been proven to have never seen that combat, never>>served in Vietnam and in some extreme cases, never even served>>in the military.>>What this means, simply, is that we cannot rely on the emotion>>of the subject as a way of telling if the experience was real,>>imagined, or is an outright lie.>In general I agree with Kevin in that there are good actors and>many others who can be very emotional and lie at the same>time.....>But the difference here is that Dr. Simon was a master at using>medical hypnosis to extract a re-living of an experience as>opposed to a mere re-telling.>Did the testimony about Vietnam battles etc., come out under>hypnosis by a psychiatrist as competent as Ben Simon using>medical hypnosis?
Yes.
The point was that in many cases of reliving of events under
hypnosis, medical and otherwise, there are no records that might
be used. Those telling of childhood assault, Satanic Ritual Abuse,
and in other cases, there is no record that might be consulted
for veracity of the tale.
In these cases, where 'wannabes' were telling of their combat,
in a clinical environment, under medical hypnosis, they were
exhibiting the emotions that would be expected. Then, when the
records were checked, it was found that they didn't agree with
the stories being told.
As an aside, many of those caught with records that did not
reflect their tales of combat, suggested that the records had
been altered because they had been in Cambodia or Laos, or on
secret missions. Does this sound familiar?
So, my point, and the whole point, was that a display of the
proper emotions does not 'prove' that the subject is telling the
truth. The recovered and recalled memories, under hypnosis, with
the proper emotion, should be just one small part of the overall
assessment.
>Obviously, I think there are a whole host of reasons for>accepting the Hill story besides the emotion.>I was very impressed with Barney when I met with him and Betty>in 1968 and with John Fuller and my conversations with Dr.>Simon, and with my review of Fuller's papers at Boston>University.>Because there are scam artists and liars certainly doesn't mean>that nobody is to be believed.
All I'm saying here is that we cannot rely only on the emotions
exhibited by the subject. That they were properly emotional just
doesn't mean anything by itself.
And I didn't suggest that we reject all cases because there are the
liars out there, only that we be aware that emotion of the subject
means very little by itself.
KRandle